Portal talk:Main/Archive 2008
This is the discussion for the Main Page. Here the layout and contents of the Main Page can be discussed. If you have a question about Star Trek, please post it at the Reference Desk. For issues concerning the policies and operation of Memory Alpha, please go to Memory Alpha:Ten Forward. Previous discussions: 2004 archive, 2005 archive, 2006 archive, 2007 archive. ---- Where to watch in the UK. I hope I've put this in the right place. Star Trek: The Next Generation is now showing on the Bravo channel in the UK every day at 11pm. It wasn't in the 'where to watch' section, so I just thought I'd say so someone can change it. :) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: Also, Star Trek: Enterprise is shown every Monday at 9pm on Virgin 1 in the UK. 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) ::TNG has now started airing on Virgin 1 and it has replaced the 8 o'clock DS9. DS9 now airs weekdays at 2pm, TNG following at 3 then again at 8pm. I'm not sure about the weekends. 81.99.156.5 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Hi, TNG has been replaced on Bravo by VOY - same time slot, monday through fridays at 11pm. TNG on Virgin1 has now been replaced by VOY. Tng moving When did they move tng from spike to G4? User:Bleep196 januaury 2008 :They didn't "move" it. They were both showing it at the same time for awhile, then Spike dropped it. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) G4 also appears to have dropped TNG. In fact, they seem to have dropped their Monday run of six TOS episodes as well. Maybe the main page should be changed to reflect that. (I tried to, but that part is locked.) - Adambomb1701 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :: Changed to reflect what? Let me (or someone know) and we can get it done. --Alan del Beccio 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC) The fact that G4 seems to have dropped both TOS and TNG, and Spike is no longer running TNG. - Adambomb1701 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :::That is the exact same thing as what you just said. The "Where To Watch" section has been updated. Thanks. - Adambomb1701 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Main page panel length Can anyone think of a way to keep the panels on the Main Page equal in length, as is done at Memory Beta? It really doesn't look very good when one side is lower or higher than the other. Even if one of the panels has a big empty space between the text and the end of the panel, it will still look better than it does now. --From Andoria with Love 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Personally, I like the differnt length panels, to each his own I guess. I find that having big gaps in panels or between texts just to keep things the same length looks ugly and unorganized, and as someone who has made a couple of personal wiki's before, I often come to MA for the panel coding, simply because of how it works. With that said, I am uncertain on how to carry this out, other then placing extra spaces in between the text and a pain staking proccess every time it is updated due to the changing lengths.--Terran Officer 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) The link to the official site in today's news Hi there. The link to the official Paramount site for the new movie in today's news is wrong. It's www.paramount.startrek instead of www.paramount.com/startrek– Spock2266 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Error in Viola Simpson quote on the front page. She said, "Maybe HE'S singing to that man," per the earlier note by Gillian Taylor that the song is always sung by the male. --Ds093 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Picture of the day, 20/2 Why is the picture of the day titled "Happy Birthday DeForest Kelley"? His birthday was a month ago.– Spock2266 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC) :I removed the note for now, and the images can probably be swapped around later. As a general note though, should we really be wishing a happy birthday to...the deceased? Doesn't seem right to me...– Cleanse talk 09:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC) RSS Feed for news only? are there RSS feeds for the news section & news section for ST11 respectively? i don't want the RSS feed for the recent changes to the entire wiki. :See Forum:Possibility of getting Memory Alpha news in RSS?. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Caption error under picture of day The word "prophesized" is a mistake - the verbal form of prophecy is, in English, "prophesy," past tense "prophesied." The English verbal tendency towards -ize words is a reflection of the Greek -izo (baptizo in Greek becomes baptize in English, evangelizo becomes evangelize, et cetera), but there is no "prophesizo" word - the Greek is "propheteuo." The main page is protected, so I am not able to make the change. 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC) april fools day plan i recomend that for april fools day we lock the main page and save a copy of some of the longest/most important pages 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Portal:Main Hey y'all, I was wondering what you guys thing of this: User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page ? It's a slightly modified version of the Main Page that IMO is a bit more organized that the current main page. I just like to hear your thoughts about it. Nat.tang 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :Looks pretty good to me. Not only does it look better organized, the columns are also even. I like it. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::If you're looking for votes, I say yes to the new one. It does look more organized. Also, for some reason, the Featured Article section just looks better on the left. Way cool!!! ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::I thinks it looks good too.--UESPA 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::I like the box around the titles and the article of the week on the other side. So I'd say yes. --From ''TrekkyStar''[[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Peace and Long Life]] 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: Could we have at least given this discussion some time before implementing the changes? --Alan 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :Yah, this should have been discussed a bit more before the changes were made, in order to give others the chance to potentially oppose the changes or offer suggestions. --From Andoria with Love 02:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) oops...I guess I should have waited...but the deed has been done...if you want to revert, go ahead... Nat.tang 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::I like it. Cleaner and with even columns. Great work Nat.tang!– Cleanse talk 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::It may look nice, but I show up today, ~16 hours after my last visit, and what's happened, but an entire redo on the front page. 16 hours is not enough to discuss everything, talk about it, get consensus on the new look and feel, and then install it. :::::::Seriously folks. What in Hell were you thinking? -- Sulfur 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I completely agree with Alan and Sulfur - this has been happening just too quick. The main page suggestion was initially posted to my talk page, where I stated that I personally like the way the section headers look, but that it would be appropriate to discuss this on this talk page first. With discussion, I was referring to a process where people actually had time to comment - not some rush job of posting a link here, and then start to move pages mere hours later. I haven't even had the time to look at the actual code of the page. So, it might be best to remove the changes for some more days, and continue a discussion. -- Cid Highwind 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I have to agree with Cid, Sulfur, and Alan. I was looking at this stuff yesterday, and initially I couldn't even figure out what had changed, because when I looked at Portal:Main and the sub page with the proposed new portal, I didn't see anything different. The problem was that the change had already been made before I had even seen that a discussion was opened on it, and I was one of the ones lucky enough to have a message on my talk page about this discussion, linking me here. That means I got sent an email telling me this was going on, and I was still to slow to beat the change. Way too fast. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :I agree with Cid, Alan, Sulfur, and Cobra. Oh, wait... I already agreed above. Nevermind... --From a College Campus with Love 12:41pm EST, 20 March 2008 ::::::::::So it will be reverted then? Anyway, the panel thing was supposed to make the main page simple, and compartmentalize the parts of the page. I don't like how the titles have been taken out of the panels and put into these numbered template parameters. Also, I don't really like the look of the headers. So if we are voting, I would go back to the old setup. --Bp 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I agree with Shran, Cid, Alan, Sulfur, Bp, and Cobra... "and you know how that makes me crazy". This needed serious, extensive discussion as it affects the most important page on the site. One major issue is that the page no longer refers to the site CSS, which is crucial in ensuring a common style across all pages. I shall revert back to the original, as soon as I figure out all the changes that have to be undone (of which there are many). Reverted to previous style and formatting. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::Getting back to the stylistic matters: ::::::My main gripe with the current setup is that the columns aren't even. Could we fix that?– Cleanse 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) It's always possible, but IMO, not with the template. Nat.tang 02:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Here is option 2: User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3/test. Cheers, Nat.tang 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::OK. If this continues... could we perhaps first discuss if we even need a new main page at all? Identify problems with the current one, suggestions to change one thing or another? And then (not now, immediately) find a way to make it work? The current main page has gone through several iterations of code and layout before being implemented - and it seems to work, for the most part, as the only problem currently identified is the one of uneven columns. This is not nearly big enough of a problem to go and tear down the whole system in a hurry. Also, if it is just a suggestion for formatting changes, those should be implemented through our CSS anyway... -- Cid Highwind 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Well there is option two above....it doesn't look much different that the current set up with very few difference. The differences: (1) instead of multiple panels that make up the "core"/"body"/"centre", there are just two. (2) it does use a table-within-a-table format. Granted some people don't like it, but it is the only way possible if we want even tables. (3) The sections have been organized in the same fashion as my last proposal: leftside = Article, DYK, Where to watch, Editing MA; rightside = News, Today in Trek History, Upcoming releases. (4) the panels are even. The similarities: (1) they all use the "style=border:1px outset #(hex colour); background:#(hex colour);" (2) They all use the same colour schemes as the previous. Cheers, Nat.tang 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::Well, in reply to Cid, I just thought that since we are discussing the main page, I'd voice my only real problem with it, namely the uneven columns. I agree that that alone is insufficient reason to completely overhaul the main page, but if we do overhaul it, that's a "feature" I'd like to see. ::::::In reply to Nat.tang's suggestion linked above, I'd remove the "region" headings in the "Where to Watch" section. Kind of pointless with 5 countries and 3 regions. The current "Where to Watch" set-up is fine. – Cleanse 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::The columns can not be even. The news changes length, and the Today in Trek History panel varies daily from 1 to 50 items. --Bp 19:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Yes the length of the text changes, however, in User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3/test the panels always stays at an even length with each other. Nat.tang 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: Nat.tang: When are you going to address whether or not any of these changes are needed? It has been mentioned once or twice-- the necessity of all this-- and you have seemed to make every effort to ignore the main question that addresses this issue. Judging from the comments above, this whole situation has irritated a lot of people, and it would be nice if you/we could stop focusing on "fixing" the problem and instead focus on whether or not there even *is* a problem. Thanks --Alan 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, I believe that changes are needed. There are a few problems with the current revision that need to be fixed. (1) Although the heading underline is within and aligned with the panels when using Internet Explorer and Firefox, they are out of alignment with the panel when someone is using a Mac-based browser, such as Safari. (2) The panels (not the text) are not align which basically creates a lot of unneeded "whitespace". Both these problems are fixed in User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3/test. And if you read the comments above, they were irritated with the fact that I act way too quickly in term of implementing my last proposal. Nat.tang 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) :Nat.tang, I think we should have a discussion on whether the community thinks these changes are, indeed, needed. While I liked the way it looked (with a few exceptions), your improvements have not been approved by the community... nor has their necessity. Basically, the primary focus of discussion should be: do we, as a community, need this. I think that's what Alan was trying to say... maybe. That said, it would probably be best if you stopped editing the Main Page panels until we come to some kind of consensus. --From Andoria with Love 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) ok...but I have edited the main page since my changes were reverted. All I did was present a new proposal for consideration: One that won't sock anyone and that isn't far from the current revision. Granted, the community needs to reach consensus whether or not changes are needed, but I have a proposal and if I want to present it, I will present it. I'm not directly editing the main page at this point in time, just presenting a proposal. Nat.tang 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) A problem that I find is that when someone places a proposal out there, it seems that no one is interested in discussing it, until someone does something BOLD and "radical". It's frustrating. Nat.tang 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: Obviously you haven't mastered the art of patience, we're not wikipedia, so you shouldn't expect the same immediate results here that you might expect there. Silence here is not consensus, so I won't expect you changes to last long. --Alan 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, I know it's not Wikipedia, but the fact is that I haven't seen anything that would point to meaningful discussion at all or even the interest of discussion. Since my first few edits on this project, all that I've been getting is a wall. And you know what, that is why my patience is running out. Whenever I try to introduce something into the Project: Wall. Whenever I try to discuss my proposals: Wall. Yes, I want to help the project and take initiative, but if walls is what I constantly get from people, then you should understand why I'm frustrated and you should understand why my patience is running very thin. Nat.tang 04:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Blind reverts as well: http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Template:Panel&curid=67854&diff=800495&oldid=800481 http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Portal%3AMain&diff=800490&oldid=800483. The first one, the revert made no change, but yet one individual has determined that because it was an edit by me that it needs to be reverted. The second one is now missing a vital panel which I had included as a result of separating a page that should have been a long time ago when a separate Where to watch heading was created. I'm telling you: Wall. again. Nat.tang 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Nat.tang, I understand your frustration, but unfortunately you have taken the reverse order on many of these things, at least as I have observed. You do an enormous amount of work, to be sure, the problem is that you seem to be doing this work before finding out if there is a want or interest in the ideas. We've seen that here, and in other proposals, such as the "Military Conflicts" template. I would say there is little response here to your proposal largely because people seem to be content with the current main page (one which was created after much debate and work, I would add). I would suggest that you change tactics. Don't do the huge amount of work before finding out if it is even wanted by the community. Otherwise, if it is rejected (possibly in any form), you are going to rightfully and understandably feel frustrated. I must say, though, the main page is not the place for "boldness". --OuroborosCobra talk 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) I made that change in the first place because I've noticed that some people were not content with the main page due to the fact that the panels are not even. So I tried my first proposal. Most people didn't like it. That I understand because the style was significantly different to that of the original. The second one is different from the first as it looked almost like the original with a very similar style with one exception: the panels were even. Nat.tang 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I understand that, but then just as with your first proposal, you did not wait for consensus. Indeed, on this very page, there isn't even consensus before this discussion of concern over the uneven panels. One person said they did not like it, the other person said they did. I'm trying to help you feel less frustrated in the future with this suggestion, I really am, but you can either take the advice to discuss before taking the huge amount of work in making a new main page, or making a new sidebar, etc., or you can continue risking doing a lot of work that in the end is rejected by the community. The choice is, of course, yours. I know what I would do... --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I had prepared a response to the proposal, but unfortunately was unwell yesterday, and unable to post it until now. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 08:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Response to proposal Having investigated the proposal in full, here is my analysis: On a first glance, the proposed page (Portal:Main/Sandbox/Proposal_March_2008) looks quite reasonable - there is no significant visual difference from the existing page. However, going into the code reveals that the presentation is actually dependent on an entirely different page, User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3. This apparently serves no purpose other than to obfuscate the coding - such information can easily be presented on a single page. This method of presentation also makes changes somewhat difficult - adding a new panel, for instance, requires several changes to be made, instead of simply adding a new call on the main page. The page contains significant style tagging. Compare the following lines of code, in both cases located at the top of the main panel section: From Portal: Main: * :*''This line originates from the template.'' From new proposal: Such extensive usage of direct formatting is inefficient, and completely ignores the CSS code already in use on the site. Margins and padding for main page panels are already encoded into the site CSS in the current case - if the newer version is adopted, these new style requirements must be incorporated into the site CSS to simplify coding and allow the use of these settings in other locations if needed. The current main page is split 50-50, this new edition splits 55-45 in favour of the left hand side, with different cellpadding values for each side - exactly what purpose does this serve? Why should certain sections have greater dominance? And what was the reasoning behind where each panel would go - why swap the positioning of Latest News and AotW, for example? The "Editing Memory Alpha" panel is included in the columns, instead of at the bottom as in the current design - this reduces its effectiveness by crowding the information into a much smaller space (squeezing two columns into half the space previously used by three columns), and makes it seem less important than it is. No differentiation can be made between one panel and the next - one consequence is that readers may be confused as to which panel each edit link refers to (particularly the one at the bottom of "Where to Watch", which looks as if it could equally refer to the "Editing Memory Alpha" panel). The panels should be clearly delineated as separate entities. Overall, what purpose does a general redesign in this manner serve? Why can't the issue of uneven column lengths (apparently the only major issue with the current design) be solved using the existing, long-tested, and much cleaner code, instead of creating additional templates, layouts, and style requirements? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 08:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :I thought I would throw in the opinion of someone who checks MA daily, but rarely contributes. I very much like the idea of even columns, however that is achieved. It consistently gives me a little jab or annoyance when one column is so much longer than the other. But then again, I'm pretty nit-picky about those sorts of things. In any case, I realize that most people agree that even columns are better, but like I said, I just wanted to add the opinion of the "average" user. Rogue Vulcan 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) ::Thank you for responding DarkHorizon. The reason why we cannot accomplish "panel evenness" with the current code is due to the fact that each panel is an individual panel. The way that we can accomplish "panel evenness" is by incorporating them into one table, with each column acting as a panel. Nat.tang 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::I've fixed some of the areas you've pointed out: :::# reduced some of the coding :::# columns now share 50-50 :::Nat.tang 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC) In response to your question about positioning, The swap was a random decision. However most of the section positions do have a purpose. On the left side we have AOFW and DYK as they present the different articles and facts. On the right side we have the latest news (I've reduce the number to 4) and the trek history. both of them present events and dates. the positioning of the last two section were mainly based on their average length. As W2W was longer and AOFW and DYK together was shorter than News and History, W2W was placed on the left. Nat.tang 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) scratch that...I've modified it so that it would have the same order as the current revision does. Nat.tang 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Comparison From Portal: Main: * :*''This line originates from the template.'' From an older revision of the new proposal: An example from the revision as of 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC): As you can see, I've reduced the coding. Nat.tang 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Voyager I'm sitting here watching TV and I flip through the channels and I found Voyager on Spike at 9:00 EST. Is this a one day thing or did they change times?--UESPA 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :It seems to be a new thing. It's been on since at least Monday, at that time, and it goes until at least Thursday. (There's something else on a 9:00 AM on Friday) Rogue Vulcan 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::I think this may be a temporary affair. Over the next week or so, the late night schedule has lost any and all consistency, some nights it is UFC, some nights CSI, etc. DS9 has completely left the schedule during this period, as far as I can tell, not returning until its normal 2 AM slot on 8 April. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :::I watch Voyager on Spike at 4:00pm-6:00pm. I think it is a permenat thing, it has been doing it for about 2 weeks.--[[User:Commander Ryan|'Commander' ]][[User talk:Commander Ryan|'''Ryan]] 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC) April 5, 2008 First Contact Day is coming this Saturday... April 5, 2063 will be only 55 years away... Any features planned for the site to celebrate? :I'm not really sure. Maybe a mention in the news panel?– Cleanse 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Maybe an admin could put something like this somewhere? --From ''TrekkyStar''[[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Open Hailing Frequencies]] 15:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC) First Contact Day! Todays April 5, 2008 and Memory Alpha's celebrating. 55 years to go... Some page that will help. Star Trek: First Contact; Vulcans; Vulcan First Contact ::Hrm... no. -- Sulfur 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 'First Contact Day!' ''Todays April 5, 2008 and Memory Alpha's celebrating. 55 years to go... :::How about this? A little less cheesy. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm not convinced about either one. Maybe an addition to that days "This day in Trek history" panel? -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Maybe we could try a simple message on MediaWiki:Sitenotice... Nat.tang 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) World War III - Eugenics War - Third World War Is there someone who can help me? I remember having read about a possible clarification of the fact that WW III and the Eugenics Wars are always messed up, something like Spock (?) in "Space Seed" (?) talking about the "Third World War" which could also mean the "Third-World War" (bearing in mind that Khan and his followers were in power in third-world countries in the late 1990s. Thanks --Emissary77 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) ::Your question might be better located here at the Reference Desk, as this page is for discussion of the Portal page only.--31dot 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Editing the Article of the Week panel I can't find where the Article of the Week panel itself may be edited, but there are two grammatical issues that need resolving: the word "of" should be added before the word "an" in the second sentence, and words following colons (as occurs in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph) shouldn't be capitalized unless they are proper. I'd appreciate knowing how to edit that panel, it isn't the same as the featured article itself (the grammar of which is impeccable). Jstealth 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC) :Go to Template:ArticleOfTheWeek, and click "edit this article" at the bottom of the blurb.– Cleanse 06:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Monaco skin Hullo! I am Kirkburn, your friendly local Wikia Gaming Helper! Many Wikia wikis are switching over the default skins (for anon users) to our new skin "Monaco" this month. Most of the big wikis have already switched (i.e WoWWiki, Wookieepedia Dofus and FFXIclopedia). Monaco is now the main actively developed Wikia skin platform. As a successor to Quartz, it comes with even more customizability - you can find out more on Customizing Monaco (on Wikia Help); you can also find out info about the new features and widgets available. An admin can set the default site skin via the skin section on , or by editing MediaWiki:AdminSkin. If users wish to see another skin than the default, they can untick "See custom wiki skins (recommended)" on the same page. We really want wikis to move on to Monaco partly because it's more awesome than Quartz and Monobook and partly as it is where the bulk of our resources are currently aimed :) Please report any problems or questions with Monaco here For Memory Alpha, to get the skin working on monaco, you could do as WoWWiki has done. We have a custom skin defined in MediaWiki:Monaco.css and our skin set to monaco-custom. It shouldn't be too difficult to port MA's theming to that. WoWWiki also supports dark and light skins, which would probably also be useful for MA too look at. Thanks for listening! Kirkburn (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) :Just for clarity - who is switching what, when? :From your comment, I didn't quite get whether switching to Monaco as the default skin will be a community choice ("we ''want wikis to move", "admin can set") or if it is something done by Wikia staff definitely, and definitely now ("we are switching"). Could you clarify this? -- Cid Highwind 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) ::IMO, I think that Monobook works fine and is probably the best skin for MA at this point in time. I've seen the monaco skin used on other wikias and IMO, compared to Monobook, the layout is bulky and the ads, especially the google ads, fit better on Monobook. And this seems to be a "want it to happen" and not a "needs to be done". Nat 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC) To clarify, it is a community choice; however, one that we highly recommend due to the extra stuff the Monaco skin gives you. However, a separate issue would be to make MA light skin compatible so that those who wish to use other skins, can. WoWWiki went through a similar process last year, and it's been very useful. I'd be happy to give you advice on how to do it. Kirkburn (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) : Update - tweaked my intro text above for clarity. See Forum:Monaco skin for a mock-up of the new skin and to continue the discussion. Cheers. Kirkburn (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) That Monaco-Skin is really ugly and looks overloaded. Plus, there are some problems with the Opera-Browser (some free spaces, e.g. on the top of the main page). I hope, you change back to the old skin. It looked so much better :-( --Logical Girl 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Sci-Fi channel I was watching Sci-Fi tonight and they had TNG on and the commercials said that Enterprise would be on Tuesdays. Is this permanent or temporary? If it is permanent the times on the main page nedd changed.--Long Live the United Earth 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :I saw that too, I think it is a permanent thing. --[[User:Commander Ryan|'Commander' ]][[User talk:Commander Ryan|'''Ryan]] 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC) I can't see the Create An Account page I want to join Memory-Alpha, but every time I click the link to do so, I just get "Login / create account", and a big, grey blank area. 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Extra language-list on main page useless In my view, the additional list with flags for the languages, which MA is available in, is absolutely useless. After all, it just devours precious space and the other languages are accessible via the standard sidebar on the left anyway (just like it is on Wikipedia). --36ophiuchi 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) :On the contrary, I think that prominent links to other language versions are an importan feature for the main page. Compare the home page of www.wikipedia.org - it's nothing but a hub leading to the major different language versions. :Of course, with all the inactive language versions existing, we might want to think about not linking prominently to all of them (but perhaps just the really active and "compatible" ones), but I think some form of list should stay on the main page. -- Cid Highwind 09:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::Ok, I think I'll manage to live with the current solution ;-) --36ophiuchi 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) What happened? What happened to the main page? The new style/look/order/whatever term here, doesn't look good. Firstly, whatever was done, now Browse, Edit, and Picture of the Day is condensed (to condensed) onto the left side, and the order of the articles has changed. Is this a new permanent change, or has something gone haywire in the adjustment of the code?--Terran Officer 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) :I agree, I think the main page worked much better in its previous arrangement. This new layout makes everything look too squished on the left. Prometheus3737 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::The new main page design is to help MA prepare for the pointless ad boxes and banners that are going to be added which only anonymous users that don't have ad-blocking tools are going to be able to see. Basically, when ad boxes and banners are needlessly thrown onto the Main Page, this new design will make the Main Page "look better". For the record, I don't have a major problem with the new design, but I agree, the previous design was much, much, much better. Alas, changes must be made in order to adapt to the worthless changes Wikia is forcing upon all of its wikis. --From Andoria with Love 08:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see....and of course this change is with all skins (As I, using my logged in options, changed the default skin). I suppose it makes sense, it will take some getting used to, I guess. That and a minor tweaking to the edit and picture of the day templates, but eh. I still cannot believe that wikia is doing this, and how easily they can justify these changes (though that's another topic). --Terran Officer 08:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :::You know, what annoys me even more than the fact that we now have two ads on the main page is the "Wikia is evil" crap that always comes up afterwards. There's a forum entry where Sannse suggested a change to the main page, the only reply in quite some time being "I don't like it.", without any suggestions regarding what might need to be changed or enhanced. :::What's now on the main page is not simply this initial suggestion, forced upon us by evil Wikia, but a layout changed afterwards by at least three different people - consider it a WIP in need of further discussion, if you like. I already added my two cents to that discussion: I think that an 8 screens long main page (before the change it was 9 screens long, mind you) is just too long, and at least half of that needs to be thrown out. "Thrown out" not as in "deleted", but as in "moved to another place", of course. :::For example, I think that the current AoTW text is much too long. The text displayed on the main page should be a teaser, not a complete summary. The "Did you Know" feature might be switched to a daily rotation, with just one entry per day. The "Latest News" feature might be reduced to 3-4 entries (as has been discussed in the past, I think). Also, I'm not sure if the "Upcoming Releases" and "Where to Watch" lists are important enough to be placed on the main page in complete length... :::Do you have other/further suggestions for the main page? -- Cid Highwind 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::::I tried to give everyone a heads up long before so that we could have been working on this for a while now...nobody seemed to care. I agree Cid that the Latest News could be shortened by one entry or maybe the Latest News and Today in Trek could be combined into a two column table at the top. That would shrink a lot of text. – Morder 09:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :::::Yeah, how about leaving it the way it was?--Aamin Marritza 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::::Because Aamin Marttitza Wikia is forcing the changes upon us... – Morder 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::For the record, I agree with the new Main Page style insofar as it will make the page look better with the ads. I still do not agree with the ads being added, and I probably never will. I do not think that Wikia is "evil" only that their decision is pretty pointless considering all they will accomplish is de-facing pages for a few hundred or so users who don't have ad-blocking tools. But that's a discussion for another time – I am in complete agreement that the Main Page, as it is, is too long. I like your idea for DYK. I can try to limit the news to 3 entries instead of five, as I've been trying to do. The Where to Watch/Upcoming Releases list and the This Day in Trek panel can be replaced with a link to the respective pages. If those suggestions don't help shrink the page to a tolerable length, then we can discuss limiting the AotW text. :) --From Andoria with Love 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::::User:Morder/Main <- How about that? – Morder 09:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::RE: Morder -- that's still a bit too long, methinks. Also, I think we should somehow combine the Article of the Day & Picture of the Day, rather than just sticking the latter at the bottom. Maybe the news can be put in the sidebar where the Where You Can Watch/Upcoming Releases panels are. Then under that, we can link Where To Watch/Upcoming Releases/Today In Trek History. --From Andoria with Love 10:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :::::Here's a possibility for the collapsed version Shran suggests - things are now more clearly divided, with MA-related stuff on the left (AotW, PotD needs a format tweak to center the text - something that I've been meaning to do for some time now, and the Editing box), and more general stuff on the right. If DYK gets reduced to one entry per day, that will also make the right-hand column more even. THe "In Brief" section can be made into a panel of its own. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :::Thought about something similar to DH's suggestion of an "In brief" section with links. We could allow individual panels to be initially "collapsed". In that state, only the header would be visible, plus some icon to toggle between collapsed and un-collapsed modes. This could apply to, for example, the panels "Upcoming Releases", "Where to watch", "Today in Trek history" and "Editing Memory Alpha". Combined with the reduced content of the News and DYK panels, this would lead to a much less cluttered main page, with still all information available to those interested in it. -- Cid Highwind 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::I actually tried that with the Where to Watch panel before; it didn't work. Of course, I may not have done something right. Anyway, I like where DH's version is going. If we can reduce the info in DYK, make the "In brief" section into a panel (if we decide to go with that rather than collapsing the lists), and even out the panels, it would be great. --From Andoria with Love 18:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::I have to say, I didn't particularly like the main page change, but thanks to the work of you guys it's kind of growing on me. So good work! ::::::In regards to the AotW text being too long...Instead of rewriting the existing ones, why don't we use this opportunity to wipe out all current AotW on the template and actually restart nominations in Memory Alpha:Article of the Week? There's lots of recent FAs (as well as some older ones) that I feel don't get enough attention. ::::::(When I mean wipe the current ones, I don't mean literally because they're a good backup if there's insufficient interest. What I mean is remove them gradually as we nominate new articles)– Cleanse 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::: Why don't we have a section on the main page, showing the articles currently nominated for FA? I don't think the Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles page gets enough attention as it is, with only regular users visiting it to vote. If we had it on the main page, the ordinary user would be able to see this and think "Oh, what's this?" and perhaps get more involved in the voting process. Speaking from personal experience, when voting on nominations, I see the same names again and again - Cleanse, Fleet Captain, AJHalliwell, OuroborosCobra, Shran, Cid Highwind, 31dot... I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - just that we should try and get some of the lesser-experienced users into voting for featured articles. - TrekFan 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC) :::My last change to the FA nominations page was back in March, so your experience might be a little inaccurate at least in that regard... ;) In any case, I think that the main page is a page for visitors and "users" much more than a page for experienced contributors (aka "the community"). While, of course, it isn't strictly forbidden for the former to vote on FA nominations, it seems to make more sense to collect votes from the latter group instead. After all, how could a first-time visitor really decide whether an article really is "one of the best", in comparison to the whole article base he hasn't even seen yet? :::Re:Cleanse - I haven't really followed the AotW process, either. So, the current AotW's are actually old ones, recycled? In that case, you're right, it's high time to do something about that... :) -- Cid Highwind 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC) :::For what it's worth, this is still more or less my suggestion for a new process that combines "Peer Review", "FA nom" and "AotW" into one (some slight modifications from the initial suggestion some years ago pending). :::In short, what would be done is that, as a first step, all past "Featured Articles" get "retired" - they may reapply, but won't be used for future "AotW" without another vote. :::Then, we create a new voting page where everyone may have a vote what the next "AotW" might be. "Peer Review" should be mandatory for the articles suggested here, and also, all AotW candidates should have a subpage (e.g. PAGENAME/excerpt) containing what will become the AotW summary on the main page. This AotW-voting will then double as our way to determine "Featured Articles" (because this time, an article chosen here will actually be featured ;)). At the end of each week, the article with the most votes will be chosen as next weeks AotW... -- Cid Highwind 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::: Well, those were the names I could think of off the top of my head, and yours I seem to remember a bit. Anyway... -- TrekFan 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I was just looking around on the main page and noticed the tree was in use for the where to watch, and it didn't work that well. What about, to trim it down (as thats one thing I see mentioned again and again, trim down the main page), the countries were air times and channels are listed and on the channel page (That nearly all, if not all channels mentioned have) the current broadcast times can be found for whatever series airs at the time. For upcoming releases, perhaps a link to the upcoming releases list, and then the current year production list can be inserted, with then the panel length trimmed down to a couple items for each category, like once a release has officially occurred, its removed from the list on the main page panel. TOS remastered for instance, should only show two or three weeks at a time, not four or more (although this would require updates more often). I hope this sounded right. --Terran Officer 01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Featured User I think we should have a featured user section on the main page where we can reward a dedicated user with some recognition. We could all vote on who we think has made the best contribution in the past week/month and then their name could be displayed on the home page for all to see. I just thought it would be good to show some appreciation for those dedicated users who have made MA what it is today. Any thoughts? -- TrekFan 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC) :Are there any other larger Wikis having "Featured Users"? Sounds a bit like "Employee of the Month" ;-) . Generally, I think your suggestion is not bad at all, however, our Main Page is already overcrowded as it is... Let's see what the others think. --36ophiuchi 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC) ::For the record, Wookieepedia has an editor of the month. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Memory Gamma Why isn't http://memory-gamma.wikia.com/wiki/ listed in related wikis?-- 10:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC) :Probably because stexpanded has existed a lot longer with the same topic. But I don't know. – Morder 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) ::It's different topics. stexpanded just gives info about existing fanon, memory gamma lets you create it.-- 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC) :::I personally think we don't need to list every other website there just because it is a wiki about Trek. The links we have at the moment are already more prominent than the links to our own co-projects in other languages (which might be something worth thinking about). In any case, and taking MB as an example: that site has been active for more than three years now, is actively edited by many people (including several that also edit here) and is a great resource for stuff that can't be found on our own wiki. It deserves a mention. :::Memory Gamma, on the other hand, is a very young wiki - at the moment without even a completely working main page. Maybe we can just let it find its way first, and then talk about inclusion on our main page. -- Cid Highwind 10:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC) ::::Agreed. We shouldn't mention it just because it exists, we should see what it becomes first.--31dot 12:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC) IE8 beta 2 not supported IE8 beta 2 and memory alpha seem to be incompatible without the use of IE7 mode. when attempting to load the page in IE8 there is just a blank page and nothing else. when i turn on IE7 mode the pages load but editing is very slow. this problem will most likely not be fixed in the final release as the rendering engine of IE8 is very different to that of 7. it will most likely be up to you to fix. i thought i should make you aware of this issue. :Hmmm... might have to do with the 74 errors(!) this page contains. There are multiple warnings per error, of course, but that seems a bit much. I'm making Wikia aware of that, thanks for the warning. :) -- Cid Highwind 13:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC) :: Yeah ... 74 errors. The "classic" skin only has 41 errors ... and again all I can say is: Dump that ugly new skin. --Logical Girl 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)